Trump Accused of Breaking Federal Rules Twice in Two Days as Ethics Questions Mount

By: Ebenezer Adugyamfi/ Emmanuel Ayiku for GhanaianNewsCanada
September 10, 2026

US President Donald Trump and his administration are facing renewed scrutiny after two separate developments raised questions about whether federal rules governing government employees, public funds and political activity have been breached.

The allegations come as Trump’s administration faces growing legal and political challenges over its handling of federal programmes, grants and government resources.

Importantly, the claims do not mean that Trump has been found guilty of a federal crime. Some of the concerns involve complaints against administration officials, while others relate to questions over whether large personal payments made by Trump to government employees could amount to prohibited compensation.

The developments nevertheless highlight a broader debate in Washington over how far a president and his administration can go when using the powers of the federal government.

Questions over politically influenced federal grants

One of the latest allegations centres on the administration’s handling of federal grants.

The Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), a government ethics watchdog, filed a complaint with the US Office of Special Counsel on September 9, alleging that decisions to cancel federal grants or deny government services based on political identity or voting patterns could violate the Hatch Act.

The organisation points to a court filing in an earlier case involving billions of dollars in clean-energy grants.

According to CREW, the Department of Energy acknowledged in court that decisions concerning approximately $7.6 billion in grants were made based on the political identity of the states where recipients were located.

CREW argues that federal resources are supposed to be administered without partisan discrimination and has asked the Office of Special Counsel to investigate.

The Hatch Act was introduced in 1939 to restrict partisan political activity by federal employees. Among other things, it limits the use of official government authority to influence elections.

However, there is an important distinction.

The Hatch Act’s restrictions generally apply to covered federal employees and officials. It would therefore be misleading to simply state that Trump himself has been found to have violated the Hatch Act based solely on CREW’s complaint.

The legal question is instead whether federal officials involved in the decisions breached restrictions on the political use of government authority.

The unusual $45,000 payments to Trump’s aides

A second controversy emerged after financial disclosures revealed that Trump gave three of his White House aides $45,000 each in cash as holiday gifts in 2025.

The recipients were Natalie Harp, Margo Martin and Chamberlain Harris.

Another senior aide, Walt Nauta, reported receiving a $20,000 gift.

The payments were particularly notable because the three aides who received $45,000 each earn about $150,000 a year from their government positions. The gifts therefore amounted to roughly one-third of their annual salaries.

The White House has defended the payments, saying Trump has a longstanding practice of giving Christmas gifts to people around him, including employees and aides.

A spokesman said the gifts were personal and had nothing to do with the recipients’ official government responsibilities.

But ethics experts have questioned whether such large payments to federal employees can legally be treated simply as personal gifts.

Why the payments have attracted legal attention

US federal law places restrictions on supplementing the salaries of government employees with outside compensation.

Former White House ethics officials have therefore questioned whether the payments could create a legal problem, particularly because the money came from the president to employees working directly in the White House.

Former White House ethics lawyer Richard Painter said the payments appeared to raise concerns under federal rules governing compensation for government employees.

Other ethics experts have been more cautious, noting that the precise circumstances surrounding the payments matter and that the White House maintains they were unrelated to official duties.

That distinction could become important if investigators examine the payments.

A gift given simply as a personal present is treated differently from money intended to supplement an employee’s government salary.

The unusual size of the payments, however, has made the issue difficult to dismiss.

Why the two controversies matter

Taken separately, the two disputes concern different areas of US law and government ethics.

The federal grants controversy concerns the alleged use of government programmes and resources in ways that may have been influenced by political considerations.

The cash-gift controversy concerns whether government employees can receive substantial personal payments from the president while continuing to serve in government.

Together, they have intensified concerns among ethics advocates about the boundary between Trump’s personal political relationships and the formal responsibilities of the US government.

Federal employees are expected to administer government programmes according to law rather than according to which political party won an election in a particular state.

Similarly, government ethics rules are designed to prevent financial relationships from creating obligations or conflicts that could influence official decisions.

Trump administration rejects wrongdoing

The White House has rejected the suggestion that the cash gifts were improper.

Officials argue that Trump has given similar holiday gifts over many years and that the payments were not compensation for government work.

On the federal grants issue, the administration has defended its authority to review and cancel programmes that it considers inconsistent with its priorities.

The Trump administration has also previously argued that federal funding should not be used to support activities it considers politically motivated or inconsistent with federal policy. A 2025 presidential memorandum directed federal agencies to investigate what the administration described as improper political activity involving federal grant money.

What happens next?

The latest developments are unlikely to be resolved immediately.

CREW’s complaint places the federal grant controversy before the Office of Special Counsel, which would have to determine whether there is sufficient basis for further action.

The cash-gift controversy could similarly attract additional scrutiny from congressional investigators, ethics officials or other authorities if questions about the payments continue.

At this stage, however, there has been no final determination establishing that Trump committed a criminal offence in relation to the payments.

That distinction is important because accusations, ethics complaints and court arguments are not the same as a finding of legal liability.

A wider test for Trump’s second administration

The controversies come at a time when Trump’s second administration is already facing multiple legal battles involving elections, immigration, federal spending and the use of executive authority.

For supporters, the administration’s aggressive approach represents an effort to dismantle policies they believe were wasteful or politically motivated under previous governments.

For critics, the same approach raises concerns about whether presidential power is being used to reward political allies and punish opponents.

That disagreement is likely to remain one of the central political and legal battles of Trump’s second term.

For Americans — and for the millions of people around the world who depend on US government decisions, including Ghanaian immigrants, students, businesses and families with ties to the country — the outcome matters beyond Washington.

Federal decisions affecting immigration, employment, education, grants and public services can have direct consequences for communities across the United States.

The latest allegations therefore represent more than another political dispute surrounding Donald Trump. They form part of a continuing debate over one of the fundamental questions facing the US government: where should the limits of presidential power and political influence be drawn?